Author Topic: Now that the 2020 Election is over....  (Read 72825 times)

D. Engebretson

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4610
    • View Profile
Re: Now that the 2020 Election is over....
« Reply #390 on: November 12, 2020, 01:26:17 PM »
Given that the election is, for all practical terms over, and the thread for that is closed, and we have a new thread about what life is like "now that the 2020 election is over...", I have been concentrating on the anticipated Biden administration and what that means for the future. I have tried to be substantive about projected policies and actions intended by the presumptive president-elect. However, it is beginning to seem that we can't quite go there yet until Trump is fully out of the picture.  As long as he remains, the anger against him remains. I understand that some feel deeply hurt by his time in the office. They believe that so many things he did were a disaster for the country. Some also feel that there were good things that came out of that administration.  However, I will not go there because the feelings toward Trump are so caustic and raw and full of vitriol that anything said of Trump that is intended to be positive will be seen as a lie and a case of disillusionment or distorting of the facts.

If our goal is to spend time I noting all the ways that Trump is bad, then perhaps I should wait for the air to clear when we can talk about Biden and the future.  I have no real interest in the latter.   
Pastor Don Engebretson
St. Peter Lutheran Church of Polar (Antigo) WI

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 17553
    • View Profile
Re: Now that the 2020 Election is over....
« Reply #391 on: November 12, 2020, 01:47:47 PM »
https://vashiva.com/dr-shiva-live-mit-phd-analysis-of-michigan-votes-reveals-unfortunate-truth-of-u-s-voting-systems/

This is the sort of conspiracy theory floating around out there. The thing to do is to answer it. And by answer it, I don't mean assure everyone that safeguards are in place to prevent cheating, or claim that this kooky MIT statistician is not to be taken seriously. That is avoiding it, which only lets the idea that the election is stolen fester.

Is his data wrong? Are his systemic assumptions flawed? Is there a perfectly reasonable explanation for what on the surface appears to be obvious chicanery? If so, let's hear it. Take up the argument. But the more the media simply shushes everyone, as they did with the Hunter Biden scandal, the more they simply lose credibility.

In this case, the argument is simple. The data in three Michigan counties (but not all counties) shows an unnaturally uniform correlation between the percentage of people in any given precinct who voted straight Republican and the degree to which Trump underperformed the straight Republican ticket. That is, Trump overperforms the GOP ticket at uniform rates in highly Dem precincts, but underperforms the GOP in Republican precincts. That is to be expected given the dynamics of the race. What is not to be expected and is not explicable (apart from algorithmic bias in the tabulation) is the uniform rate of underperformance in a straight diagonal line in all three counties. Barring the explanation that the votes were counted with a weighted bias factored in, what is the explanation?

I don't think most people will take Dr. Shiva seriously. He is a classic internet guru sleuth type. But if you want people taking for granted that elections were free and fair and not shady or dubious, then I think his recommendations are sound. For example, the way it is done in Michigan, the voting machine takes a picture of the ballot. It is that picture that is counted. But the pictures are not saved. An easy way to disprove algorithmic chicanery, which would be to do a recount manually, is not possible. It should be. There should be one to one correlation between physical, re-countable ballots and registered voters who voted. Where there isn't, why not?
I think it will be good for the country if we can maximize the number of people who believe the election was conducted fairly, even if they don't like the results.  For this reason, I think it is fine to allow legal challenges supported by specific allegations to be evaluated as provided by law.  But a word of caution about the multiplying "statistical proofs" of cheating.  It is one thing to do a statistical analysis to evaluate a clearly-defined hypothesis that has been formulated prior to analyzing the data (the technical term is a pre-specified hypothesis).  It is nearly worthless to point to even extreme anomalies in a large data set as proof of anything without having a pre-specified hypothesis, because it is nearly certain that any large data set will contain hugely improbable coincidences. 

To take an example from poker, suppose you are dealt a five-card hand consisting of the two of spades, the four of hearts, the six of diamonds, the eight of clubs, and the ten of spades.  This is a remarkable hand in that it includes all the suits and all the even numbers.  The odds of being dealt this exact hand are roughly 2.6 million to one against, making it rarer than a royal flush.  But it won't win you any money, because this unusual hand has not been "pre-specified" as a winner according to the rules of poker. 

Peace,
Jon
I don't think that analogy holds, for the simple reason that elections have built-in pre-specified rule that the most votes wins. Anything that systemically skews in the same direction once actual candidate preference has been accounted for becomes evidence of manipulation. It is not as complex as poker. More like playing War with kids. My kids used to rig the deck before challenging me. Amazingly, they would have all aces and kings to start off the game.

Say, for example, that you discovered that everyone whose last name began with B voted for Biden. That would be clear evidence of vote tampering or fraud if the sample size were more than a few hundred. But there is no way you could have that hypothesis in advance. You'd have to discover it. To put it in poker terms, if an ace falls out of the dealer's sleeve, that is evidence of cheating even if you didn't hypothesize in advance he was cheating and couldn't prove empirically that he won any given hand by cheating. In one of LBJ's rigged elections, the people handling it forgot to stagger their fake votes, so it turned out his voters supposedly voted in alphabetical order.

In the case at hand, (again, I've not analyzed the data myself, so I can't vouch that his graphs are accurate) there is a clear skew that is best explained by an algorithm weighting the votes. Where common sense would expect a more or less straight horizontal line, as in War common sense would expect a more or less equal distribution of high cards in either half of the shuffled deck, we get instead a clear, straight diagonal line, nve that would be easy to produce with a weighted algorithm and very hard to explain any other way. It isn't as though he discovered an anomaly that is mere correlation, like those standard "If the Redskins win the week before the election, a Republican wins the white house," kind of thing, where they're just retrofitting circumstances from a huge pool of noise data to find one that matches.   

aletheist

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1549
  • Greek aletheia = truth
    • View Profile
    • Catechism Devotional
Re: Now that the 2020 Election is over....
« Reply #392 on: November 12, 2020, 02:09:43 PM »
The Equality Act already passed the United States House of Representatives on May 17, 2019 in a bipartisan 236–173 vote.The United States Senate received the bill for consideration on May 20, 2019, but it remains there without action.  If the Senate 'flips' or if it is deadlocked with a vote from Harris to break a tie, then that house could take up the already passed bill and pass it there, sending it to Biden who has already signaled he would sign it into law.
No, bills passed by only one house do not carry over to the next Congress, they would have to be passed again by both houses. And as John Hannah already noted, any bill in the Senate needs 60 votes to end debate, since Joe Manchin of West Virginia has reaffirmed that he will not vote to abolish the filibuster even if the Democrats take control (50-50 plus VP Harris) by winning both Georgia runoffs. The only exception is budget reconciliation, which I doubt would be a viable mechanism for passing the Equality Act.
Jon Alan Schmidt, LCMS Layman

"We believe, teach and confess that by conserving the distinction between Law and Gospel as an especially glorious light
with great diligence in the Church, the Word of God is rightly divided according to the admonition of St. Paul." (FC Ep V.2)

Charles Austin

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 13606
    • View Profile
    • Charles is Coloring
Re: Now that the 2020 Election is over....
« Reply #393 on: November 12, 2020, 02:20:21 PM »
Last night I watched "The Trial of the Chicago 7," a fine movie written and directed by the magnificent Aaron Sorkin. Those events, too, were during a time of great national division over the war. Johnson was vilified, the mounting deaths were on the minds of the tens of thousands of demonstrators in the streets of Chicago. The "Justice Department" illegally plotted against the demonstrators; the Chicago police gave brutality a face seen by the whole world. The Kerner Commission would later call it a "police riot." (I watched some of it as a reporter and was chased through the streets by baton-wielding cops. I can testify that it hurts to be hit by those "batons.")
  Black Panther Bobby Seale, who began the trial of the "Chicago 8" got a mistrial declared after Judge Julius Hoffman had him bound and gagged in the courtroom. So the eight became seven.
   The Seven - Tom Hayden, Rennie Davis, Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, David Dellenger, John Froines, and Lee Weiner - went on trial allegedly for inciting a riot, but it was actually a part of a revolution of opposition to and disgust for the Vietnam war. Some were rude, profane, disruptive, impolite and sarcastic. They had been such since the beginning of the Chicago demonstrations, except that Tom Hayden was a more "moderate" voice seeking "political" solutions rather than social revolution.
    My point is that it was the rude, sarcastic, profane, impolite, and revolutionary tactics that "won." Even Tom Hayden, later a "conventional" politician in the California Assembly and Senate recognized the need to be disruptive, loud and impolite. William Kunstler, generally considered a "radical" lawyer said he became even more radical as the trial progressed and the government misuse of power became more and more evident.
    The focus then was Lyndon Johnson, the Democrats (except for the anti-war Democrats, and there were many), the Justice Department and the unending expanding of the war. The trial in 1969 was a turning point in solidifying opposition to the war. And the trial itself revealed the depth of the government's misuse of its powers.
    The seven, Bobby Seale, and literally tens of thousands of others risked much, even death, to oppose the injustice of the war. They went after an entire administration from the President on down. And, though it took some more years, they prevailed.
     I make no apologies for being angry with those who gloss over the errors of President Trump, his trashing of our democracy and the attitudes of his aides who supported him as he brought us to the brink. This president has spent more time massaging his ego and seeking re-election than he has in caring about the people who have died or the virus that was killing them.
    On that last matter, there are parallels between 1969 and today. People are dying in a war and the president and government won't admit they are losing it.
   
Retired ELCA pastor. Iowa born. Back home from Sioux City after three days and a pleasant reunion of the East High School class of - can you believe it! - 1959.

D. Engebretson

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4610
    • View Profile
Re: Now that the 2020 Election is over....
« Reply #394 on: November 12, 2020, 02:22:13 PM »
The Equality Act already passed the United States House of Representatives on May 17, 2019 in a bipartisan 236–173 vote.The United States Senate received the bill for consideration on May 20, 2019, but it remains there without action.  If the Senate 'flips' or if it is deadlocked with a vote from Harris to break a tie, then that house could take up the already passed bill and pass it there, sending it to Biden who has already signaled he would sign it into law.
No, bills passed by only one house do not carry over to the next Congress, they would have to be passed again by both houses. And as John Hannah already noted, any bill in the Senate needs 60 votes to end debate, since Joe Manchin of West Virginia has reaffirmed that he will not vote to abolish the filibuster even if the Democrats take control (50-50 plus VP Harris) by winning both Georgia runoffs. The only exception is budget reconciliation, which I doubt would be a viable mechanism for passing the Equality Act.

Thank you for the clarification.  This is not in my realm of expertise.  I then take some renewed comfort, given the slimmer margin of Democratic majority for the next congress, and the possibility of a Republican controlled Senate, that this act may not yet see the light of day.  Yet.
Pastor Don Engebretson
St. Peter Lutheran Church of Polar (Antigo) WI

jebutler

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1747
    • View Profile
Re: Now that the 2020 Election is over....
« Reply #395 on: November 12, 2020, 02:26:27 PM »
Peter, you have to understand that in the minds of many of us the President Trump is an unmitigated disaster, in every way, mentally, socially, in terms of the things he has done, how he has treated people, and concerning the way he has presented himself, his policies and our country. You may disagree with us on that, but this is how we feel and how we feel we must respond in order to make what we understand clear.

Maureen Dowd  was fine, right up until she started with, "I’m hoping he’ll refuse to leave his room and security agents will end up carrying him out of the White House in a blanket. Which blanket would then be shredded into little bitty tufts of cloth and sold to benefit Trump’s Official Election Defense Fund. Or perhaps its successor, the Make Mar-a-Lago Great Again Crusade."

That's childish, even Trumpian behavior. She was acting like a child throwing a tantrum. I would expect a columnist on the Times opinion page to behave better.

But then, you used to work for the Times, so maybe I shouldn't expect it.
The truth we preach is not an abstract thing. The truth is a Person. The goodness we preach is not an ideal quality. The goodness is Someone who is good. The love we preach is God himself in Christ. --H. Grady Davis

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 17553
    • View Profile
Re: Now that the 2020 Election is over....
« Reply #396 on: November 12, 2020, 02:42:24 PM »
Last night I watched "The Trial of the Chicago 7," a fine movie written and directed by the magnificent Aaron Sorkin. Those events, too, were during a time of great national division over the war. Johnson was vilified, the mounting deaths were on the minds of the tens of thousands of demonstrators in the streets of Chicago. The "Justice Department" illegally plotted against the demonstrators; the Chicago police gave brutality a face seen by the whole world. The Kerner Commission would later call it a "police riot." (I watched some of it as a reporter and was chased through the streets by baton-wielding cops. I can testify that it hurts to be hit by those "batons.")
  Black Panther Bobby Seale, who began the trial of the "Chicago 8" got a mistrial declared after Judge Julius Hoffman had him bound and gagged in the courtroom. So the eight became seven.
   The Seven - Tom Hayden, Rennie Davis, Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, David Dellenger, John Froines, and Lee Weiner - went on trial allegedly for inciting a riot, but it was actually a part of a revolution of opposition to and disgust for the Vietnam war. Some were rude, profane, disruptive, impolite and sarcastic. They had been such since the beginning of the Chicago demonstrations, except that Tom Hayden was a more "moderate" voice seeking "political" solutions rather than social revolution.
    My point is that it was the rude, sarcastic, profane, impolite, and revolutionary tactics that "won." Even Tom Hayden, later a "conventional" politician in the California Assembly and Senate recognized the need to be disruptive, loud and impolite. William Kunstler, generally considered a "radical" lawyer said he became even more radical as the trial progressed and the government misuse of power became more and more evident.
    The focus then was Lyndon Johnson, the Democrats (except for the anti-war Democrats, and there were many), the Justice Department and the unending expanding of the war. The trial in 1969 was a turning point in solidifying opposition to the war. And the trial itself revealed the depth of the government's misuse of its powers.
    The seven, Bobby Seale, and literally tens of thousands of others risked much, even death, to oppose the injustice of the war. They went after an entire administration from the President on down. And, though it took some more years, they prevailed.
     I make no apologies for being angry with those who gloss over the errors of President Trump, his trashing of our democracy and the attitudes of his aides who supported him as he brought us to the brink. This president has spent more time massaging his ego and seeking re-election than he has in caring about the people who have died or the virus that was killing them.
    On that last matter, there are parallels between 1969 and today. People are dying in a war and the president and government won't admit they are losing it.
   
Good movie. The one in modern times whose rude, sarcastic, profane, and impolite behavior was required to disrupt a fundamentally corrupt establishment is Donald Trump. 

jebutler

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1747
    • View Profile
Re: Now that the 2020 Election is over....
« Reply #397 on: November 12, 2020, 02:46:09 PM »
Thank you for the clarification.  This is not in my realm of expertise.  I then take some renewed comfort, given the slimmer margin of Democratic majority for the next congress, and the possibility of a Republican controlled Senate, that this act may not yet see the light of day.  Yet.

When I lived in Illinois, which had a line-item veto, the Democratic House and Senate would pass outrageous things in the budget knowing that the Republican governor would veto them and that they couldn't override his veto. That way, they could blame him for things they knew were unrealistic.

The House acted the same way. They knew the Equality Act wouldn't go anywhere--if it didn't die in the Senate, it would be vetoed and that would end it. But it was a piece of feel-good legislation. The Republican House played the same game in passing a bill that repealed Obamacare.

The power in the House will lie with the more moderate Democrats. Pelosi doesn't have the margins she's had in the past. She will need every Democrat to agree. It would only take a few Dems to vote with the Republicans to pass alternate legislation. Come to think of it, it wouldn't take much for a more moderate Democrat to replace her as Speaker.

I personally find it sad--and frustrating--that the members of the so-called Squad get so much press on both the right and the left. They are five out of 435. They are all from very safe districts--everyone knows that the real election for those seats is the primary, the November election is merely a formality. But they are from high media areas--like New York and Boston--and that's what gives them all of the attention.
The truth we preach is not an abstract thing. The truth is a Person. The goodness we preach is not an ideal quality. The goodness is Someone who is good. The love we preach is God himself in Christ. --H. Grady Davis

Donald_Kirchner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 11527
    • View Profile
Re: Now that the 2020 Election is over....
« Reply #398 on: November 12, 2020, 02:49:38 PM »

I comment:
Can everyone in this modest forum now do our country the courtesy of referring to Biden as “President-Elect”?
So I will call Biden the presumptive President Elect until those results are certified. Meanwhile the current occupant of the White House is and remains the legitimate President of the United States and will remain so until he officially leaves office.

I think that this is both a respectful and technically proper way to address Biden at this stage.  I know that when he speaks the backdrop reads "Office of the President-Elect," but it is true that he is not that until the Electoral College formally votes.  Many of us admit he is the presumptive new leader and are not arguing that the upcoming legal battles are likely to change that prospect.

It's called arrogation, "to make undue claims to having." [M-W] It's designed to make you think someone has authority because it looks like they do. There is no office of President-Elect. If there were, as stated above, Biden is not there yet.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2020, 02:51:23 PM by Pr. Don Kirchner »
Don Kirchner

"Heaven's OK, but it’s not the end of the world." Jeff Gibbs

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43175
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Now that the 2020 Election is over....
« Reply #399 on: November 12, 2020, 03:17:53 PM »
Among the liberal causes Biden is pledged to support and work toward, as I mentioned upstream some posts ago, is the Equality Act. Of course, if the Senate remains in Republican control it stands less of a chance of passing.  But the Senate's control is not settled, as the runoff election in Georgia proves.  If the Senate ends up evenly split, Kamala Harris becomes the majority in contested votes.



Why is there the assumption that all Republicans and all Democrats will always vote with their party? They are elected to represent the people of their state.

The Equality Act already passed the United States House of Representatives on May 17, 2019 in a bipartisan 236–173 vote.The United States Senate received the bill for consideration on May 20, 2019, but it remains there without action.  If the Senate 'flips' or if it is deadlocked with a vote from Harris to break a tie, then that house could take up the already passed bill and pass it there, sending it to Biden who has already signaled he would sign it into law. 

I think that it is a very valid concern for those of us on the more conservative end of the spectrum who see the law as extreme and potentially harmful to conservative Christian organizations.


How would it harm the Christian belief that Jesus Christ is Lord?


I think what you mean is that it would harm the moral conviction of some conservative Christians. What one believes about homosexual relationships or civil rights, is not what makes someone a Christian.
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43175
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Now that the 2020 Election is over....
« Reply #400 on: November 12, 2020, 03:21:50 PM »

Why is there the assumption that all Republicans and all Democrats will always vote with their party? They are elected to represent the people of their state.

In the Senate, Senators are elected to represent their state (at large).  Representatives are elected to represent their Congressional District.  Most states split their party vote percentages at the polls somewhere (roughly) between 60-40 and 51-49.  This is probably true in many Congressional Districts, as well.  All elected by popular vote.
Nationwide, the party popular vote percentages are roughly 53/47 or so this time.

Now, check out Senate and House votes over the past 8 years. On the most visible issues, almost all Democrat and Republican Senators and Representatives vote straight party line, without regard to representing the "losing" minority (of up to 49% in many cases) in their state or district.

So, perhaps the assumption exists because on the big issues, it is verifiable.
As to Senators and their state, then most Senators don't represent the wishes of their people (perhaps only of those who elected them --- or their party) on many major issues.
Or not.


The following video shows that it wasn't always so.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEczkhfLwqM

"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 17553
    • View Profile
Re: Now that the 2020 Election is over....
« Reply #401 on: November 12, 2020, 03:36:17 PM »
Among the liberal causes Biden is pledged to support and work toward, as I mentioned upstream some posts ago, is the Equality Act. Of course, if the Senate remains in Republican control it stands less of a chance of passing.  But the Senate's control is not settled, as the runoff election in Georgia proves.  If the Senate ends up evenly split, Kamala Harris becomes the majority in contested votes.



Why is there the assumption that all Republicans and all Democrats will always vote with their party? They are elected to represent the people of their state.

The Equality Act already passed the United States House of Representatives on May 17, 2019 in a bipartisan 236–173 vote.The United States Senate received the bill for consideration on May 20, 2019, but it remains there without action.  If the Senate 'flips' or if it is deadlocked with a vote from Harris to break a tie, then that house could take up the already passed bill and pass it there, sending it to Biden who has already signaled he would sign it into law. 

I think that it is a very valid concern for those of us on the more conservative end of the spectrum who see the law as extreme and potentially harmful to conservative Christian organizations.


How would it harm the Christian belief that Jesus Christ is Lord?


I think what you mean is that it would harm the moral conviction of some conservative Christians. What one believes about homosexual relationships or civil rights, is not what makes someone a Christian.

You are wrong. St. Paul says that anyone who is able but who doesn’t support his own household has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. I suppose that is just another example of him confusing some interpretation of how a supposed moral rule should be applied with the essence of the faith.

James J Eivan

  • Guest
Republicans in state Senate plan to review Pa. election results
« Reply #402 on: November 12, 2020, 03:42:30 PM »

JULIAN ROUTH
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
jrouth@post-gazette.com

 
NOV 12, 2020
11:38 AMContinuing their push to use the official levers of state government to scrutinize and review last Tuesday’s election, Republicans in Harrisburg said Wednesday they now plan to use the Senate State Government Committee to review the results.




A day after its counterpart in the House said it would hold hearings of its own on the election, the Senate committee said it would “immediately undertake a thorough review of the state’s election in order to instill confidence in the results.”"We will continue our fight to uphold Pennsylvania law and the Constitution to ensure that faith in our election system is restored," read a written statement, crafted by Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati, Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman and Sen. John DiSanto, the chair of the committee.

https://www.post-gazette.com/news/politics-state/2020/11/11/Pennsylvania-election-results-2020-PA-state-Senate-review-results-voting/stories/202011110187

Dan Fienen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 12590
    • View Profile
Re: Now that the 2020 Election is over....
« Reply #403 on: November 12, 2020, 03:45:03 PM »
How would it harm the Christian belief that Jesus Christ is Lord?


I think what you mean is that it would harm the moral conviction of some conservative Christians. What one believes about homosexual relationships or civil rights, is not what makes someone a Christian.
What it sounds to me is that you are arrogating to yourself the right to define for everyone who claims the name Christian what is essential to the faith and what are mere personal convictions that can be denied without any affect on the Christian faith.


If the Equality Act somehow outlaws the moral conviction that homosexual sexual activity is contrary to God's will, or makes acting on that conviction illegal, well that does nothing against what is the genuine Christian faith so real religious freedom is not impinged upon. I am Christian, that doesn't bother my faith, so it should not yours either. Just get better moral convictions.
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

D. Engebretson

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4610
    • View Profile
Re: Now that the 2020 Election is over....
« Reply #404 on: November 12, 2020, 04:26:14 PM »
Among the liberal causes Biden is pledged to support and work toward, as I mentioned upstream some posts ago, is the Equality Act. Of course, if the Senate remains in Republican control it stands less of a chance of passing.  But the Senate's control is not settled, as the runoff election in Georgia proves.  If the Senate ends up evenly split, Kamala Harris becomes the majority in contested votes.



Why is there the assumption that all Republicans and all Democrats will always vote with their party? They are elected to represent the people of their state.

The Equality Act already passed the United States House of Representatives on May 17, 2019 in a bipartisan 236–173 vote.The United States Senate received the bill for consideration on May 20, 2019, but it remains there without action.  If the Senate 'flips' or if it is deadlocked with a vote from Harris to break a tie, then that house could take up the already passed bill and pass it there, sending it to Biden who has already signaled he would sign it into law. 

I think that it is a very valid concern for those of us on the more conservative end of the spectrum who see the law as extreme and potentially harmful to conservative Christian organizations.


How would it harm the Christian belief that Jesus Christ is Lord?


I think what you mean is that it would harm the moral conviction of some conservative Christians. What one believes about homosexual relationships or civil rights, is not what makes someone a Christian.

Others have shared some good responses to this, but my initial concern about the Equality Act is not whether it would impact the truth of Christ.  It cannot. No law can. But if enacted and passed into law, it could be used against Christian organizations like adoption agencies, day schools, and colleges/universities, to threaten the loss of federal funding (such as student aid, for example) if full compliance is not given, that is, if people practicing lifestyles considered sinful and contrary to God's Word (as per the convictions of the organization) are not hired and given equal opportunity for employment. 
Pastor Don Engebretson
St. Peter Lutheran Church of Polar (Antigo) WI